Welcome to the Orioles Nation Forums! Like most online communities, you must register to post on our message board. However, posting is free--it always will be--and registration is a simple process. Become part of the growing Orioles Nation community and register now!

Lets say that it does take Schoop, Glynn Davis, Bridwell and Delmonico. With the exception of Schoop all of these guys are 2 years away or more if they do indeed pan out. Glynn Davis was not even a draft pick. Bridwell is struggling in A ball, Delmonico is doing well, Schoop is hitting .200 against right handed pitching, and has a poor OBP......I'm just saying there is a chance that all 4 of these guys turn out to nothing.... Murphy's law is that as soon as we deal them all 4 turn into studs. Remember back to the Glenn Davis deal for Harnisch, Schilling and Finley.I think the risk is worth the reward. If I were playing GM here I would want to include a pitcher from the 40 man and possibly take 1 or 2 prospects off the table. Maybe we could include a Tillman or an Arrieta along with 2 prospects. I think those guys are young enough that they have value.

I don't think trading for Garza is a terrible idea. We could do a whole lot worse. I would not deal Machado or Bundy as it stands right now. I would consider anyone else in the farm system, although I would really like to hang onto Delmonico. But to get something, you have to give something so if Schoop, Delmonico and another prospect would be needed to put a #2 type guy in our ration for the next year and a half then I'm onboard with that idea. Just my two cents

A_K wrote:Comparing the Jones contract to those of McCutchen and Longoria doesn't make much sense, given their extremely different arbitration situations. I agree that the Rays approach is the most preferable and that more teams should utilize it, but comparing those contracts to the one Jones got is nonetheless comparing apples to hermit crabs.

No it's not. It's comparing how the Rays and Pirates chose to deal with extending their star players to how the Orioles chose to deal with it. The Rays and Pirates took care of it early and were able to get great deals. The Orioles waited too long. Because of that, Jones has to play better than what he has before this season for most of the contract in order to earn the money he's getting.

A_K wrote:By most accounts Jones' contract pays him the going free agent rate for the level of play he's had for the last two seasons. If he performs between his current, unsustainable rate and what he did previously, the contract will generate some surplus value. Anything above that would give the team substantial surplus value. The overwhelming consensus, by which I mean virtually every non-Keith Law analyst, has graded the deal as a good one for both the Orioles and Jones.

The goal in extending your superstar players should not be to pay the free agent rate. So while the contract may not hurt the Orioles, it won't be advantageous for the team in the future like those of Longoria and McCutchen.

In a vacuum, yes you'd always prefer to extend players earlier to give yourself the best chance at extracting surplus value. But there are two sides to any negotiation, and not all players are prepared to accept the security that lured Longoria to the table, knowing that they're also potentially giving up far more than they're receiving. In many cases, a hot stretch will bring a player to the table when he otherwise would be satisfied to wait until free agency. In that case, your job is to negotiate in such a way that you aren't buying high, even if the negotiations wouldn't be going on without the player's hot stretch. By virtually all informed accounts, that's what the Orioles were able to achieve with the Jones contract, and it's allowed them to be in a position to receive surplus value that wouldn't be available to whichever team signed Jones in free agency.

This is the first time I've seen someone suggest that it's reasonable to compare the Jones and McCutchen contracts. I've seen comparisons proposed, but they've been immediately shot down as obviously ludicrous, given the starkly different contract circumstances of at the time of the extensions. Certainly no agent or front office would ever suggest that the deals could be used as comparables the next time a CF comes to the bargaining table. The only shared qualities are that they're both center fielders and they both signed contracts.

dan72 wrote:Lets say that it does take Schoop, Glynn Davis, Bridwell and Delmonico. With the exception of Schoop all of these guys are 2 years away or more if they do indeed pan out. Glynn Davis was not even a draft pick. Bridwell is struggling in A ball, Delmonico is doing well, Schoop is hitting .200 against right handed pitching, and has a poor OBP......I'm just saying there is a chance that all 4 of these guys turn out to nothing.... Murphy's law is that as soon as we deal them all 4 turn into studs. Remember back to the Glenn Davis deal for Harnisch, Schilling and Finley.I think the risk is worth the reward. If I were playing GM here I would want to include a pitcher from the 40 man and possibly take 1 or 2 prospects off the table. Maybe we could include a Tillman or an Arrieta along with 2 prospects. I think those guys are young enough that they have value.

Your justification here could reasonably be used to justify any and all prospects-for-veteran proposals that someone could dream up. Prospects aren't guaranteed. I'd say we can take this as a given. That alone isn't a strong rationale for making win-now trades when you aren't really a team in win-now mode.

I'm not suggesting that Jones would have considered signing for the deal that McCutchen got, but that doesn't mean that you can't look at the two, all things considered, and compare them. It's not ludicrous. Ludicrous would be expecting Jones to sign for that in his previous contract state and that's not what I was saying. My comparison was simply a response to a poster claiming that the Orioles have an advantage over the Rays in that they can sign their star players to long term contracts that the Rays could not afford. This, I wrote, wasn't accurate because the Rays (and the Pirates with McCutchen) were smarter about contract extensions and extended their stars before it became expensive. I believe it may have been too late to extend Jones if this is what it took to sigh him. It may have been more beneficial to the organization to trade him for 5 prospects than to pay him this close to free agency.

I'm referring specifically to your claim that the McCutchen deal makes the Jones contract look stupid. The contracts don't fit into a side-by-side comparison because of the overwhelming number of differences between the players and their arbitration situations at the times of their respective extensions.

I would have been happy to see the O's trade Jones for 3-5 prospects that would materially change the organization's long-term outlook. When it became clear they were going to re-sign him, my focus changed to seeing whether they were going to overpay simply to make a public commitment to "taking care of their own," or whether they'd be able to negotiate a contract that would allow them to extract surplus value out of a good young player. They successfully achieved the latter, so I'm satisfied.

What are the overwhelming differences besides arbitration status and the fact that McCutchen has been better than Jones earlier in their careers? And why do these other differences matter?

I think the Jones contract looks stupid in the sense that if you want to extend a player on your team, you do it in the way that the Pirates did it. If you miss that opportunity or the player doesn't want to sign that contract, then trade him. I don't see much difference in the contract that Jones signed compared to a hypothetical free agent contract. Wouldn't a 6-year, $90 million contract to an outfielder this past offseason have seemed like a bad idea for the state the team is in? It seems like people like this move because Jones is already on the team, but beyond that, I don't think it's a great move for the organization.

Star outfielders are getting well north of 100mil on the free agent market. I think it's a stretch to imply we paid what he would of gotten in FA. Werth got 127 mil, and I believe most teams would take Jones over him. Crawford got more then that. The O's got a good deal with Jones. Just because another team or two may have gotten even better deals doesnt make the O's-Jones deal bad

Garza is a proven pitcher in the AL East who would be the O's #1 pitcher if acquired. He wouldn't be a 2 month rental as he is under contract next season. There is no guarantee that Schoop will ever make it and Garza is going to be the best available pitcher that the O's will have a shot at getting this season or next off season. He has done well in the AL East before and has improved in his time with Chicago.

This team this year has something special going on. I can't explain it but there is just something about this team that they will never give up no matter how many runs they are down and they honestly believe they will win every time they step on the field. Adding a #1/#2 starting pitcher into the mix would be another huge push to get this team to the playoffs.

Garza is not a #1. Maybe a #2. Do you know who has more value than Garza this year? Hammel, Chen, AND Arrieta.

Matt P wrote:I keep reading people saying not to sacrifice the future but the future is not guaranteed. No one that would likely be involved in the trade would have any impact on this year or next years team like Garza would.

We actually might be one or two starting pitchers away from contending this year and next if guys keep playing the way they are. Davis, Hardy, and Jones have been great, Wieters has been good, Reynolds has been great since coming off the DL (and was good the few games before he got hurt as well), Roberts looks like the Roberts of old, they actually have capable hitters off the bench in guys like Andino, Pearce, and Tolleson, Markakis could be back in a few weeks, and imagine if Reimold ever gets healthy. Hammel and Chen have been very good, Matusz has been good for the most part, Arrieta has shown flashes, and Hunter has been bad. The bullpen has been nothing short of phenomenal.

I think people should stop worrying about potentially having good players in 2+ years and worry about getting an impact player for the next 2 seasons.

The Orioles aren't losing anyone going into next year. Why not let this team prove that they can play this well for more than two and a half months and then make a move like this next trade deadline if they're in the same spot? I would be less opposed to this (yet still against it) if the contributors on this team were playing as expected and not much greater than that. Would you be surprised if Hammel and Chen started getting hit around and then the O's had no reliable starters? Or if Jones starts hitting more like last year than this year? Then they would have traded half of their farm system (and that's what it would take if you look at what the Cubs gave up to Garza) for a pitcher that won't make that much of a difference because the rest of the team isn't close to as good as NY, Boston, or Tampa Bay.

So, we should just stand pat this entire season and then make moves at the 2013 deadline? Those things could all happen, they can also not happen. The offense is only going to get better so even if Hammel and Chen regress it shouldn't be that big of a deal. It would also take pressure off the offense when Arrieta/Matusz/Hunter pitch that they will need 5+ runs to even have a chance at winning. Why not go for broke this season when you are in the hunt rather than hope you are in the hunt next trade deadline? It doesn't make sense to me to stand pat when you are in the hunt and have obvious needs at not just SP but SP, 3B, and LF.

birdwatcher55 wrote: But to get something, you have to give something so if Schoop, Delmonico and another prospect would be needed to put a #2 type guy in our ration for the next year and a half then I'm onboard with that idea. Just my two cents

Here's my two cents: If the team gives up talent like that for one player, then that player better be around a lot longer than a year and a half.

Don't understand the Schoop business. He's one of the youngest players in AA, and to get there he had to make the most difficult jump in the minor leagues (A+ to AA). To be very disappointed at this point is to have had unreasonable expectations.

birdwatcher55 wrote: But to get something, you have to give something so if Schoop, Delmonico and another prospect would be needed to put a #2 type guy in our ration for the next year and a half then I'm onboard with that idea. Just my two cents

Here's my two cents: If the team gives up talent like that for one player, then that player better be around a lot longer than a year and a half.

Don't understand the Schoop business. He's one of the youngest players in AA, and to get there he had to make the most difficult jump in the minor leagues (A+ to AA). To be very disappointed at this point is to have had unreasonable expectations.

Besides, I might want to see how Pineiro works out first.

And just to put that in perspective. He is the same age as Nick Delmonico and playing 2 levels higher.

Jordan Tuwiner wrote:Schoop is also just 20 while the average Eastern League pitcher is 24.9 years old. Any struggles he has should not be a concern. He's improved every month, too. No one should be worried at this point.

IMO there should be FOUR untouchables in this system - DYLAN Bundy, Manny Machado, Jonathon Schoop, and Nick Delmonico. Each of these players have a better than average chance of becoming a cornerstone player on the Orioles' teams of 2014 and beyond. To me, the only question about Machado, Schoop, and Delmonico is what positions they will play. I think that Machado and Schoop would be best at SS and 2B respectively, but if Delmonico can show he can play a better than ML average 2B then I could see Machado at 3B and Schoop at SS.

I'd like to see the team bring all three of these guys brought to Baltimore when their seasons end. Not to be placed on the roster but to work with Bordick and Brian Roberts in order to evaluate whether they can be our infield of the future.

If we could acquire Garza or Dempster without trading one of the untouchable four then make the trade but don't give away the future for an extra three or four wins this year.

Jordan Tuwiner wrote:Schoop is also just 20 while the average Eastern League pitcher is 24.9 years old. Any struggles he has should not be a concern. He's improved every month, too. No one should be worried at this point.

IMO there should be FOUR untouchables in this system - DYLAN Bundy, Manny Machado, Jonathon Schoop, and Nick Delmonico. Each of these players have a better than average chance of becoming a cornerstone player on the Orioles' teams of 2014 and beyond. To me, the only question about Machado, Schoop, and Delmonico is what positions they will play. I think that Machado and Schoop would be best at SS and 2B respectively, but if Delmonico can show he can play a better than ML average 2B then I could see Machado at 3B and Schoop at SS.

I'd like to see the team bring all three of these guys brought to Baltimore when their seasons end. Not to be placed on the roster but to work with Bordick and Brian Roberts in order to evaluate whether they can be our infield of the future.

If we could acquire Garza or Dempster without trading one of the untouchable four then make the trade but don't give away the future for an extra three or four wins this year.

If we sign Gausman, would he be an untouchable? Schoop didn't impress me the other night but he is very young for AA like a lot of you said. Say Machado and Schoop finished with their slashlines of .243/.331/.362 and .245/.303/.323, respectively. They would just repeat AA right?